Olympus E300/E500 forum

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Alfred Molon, Dec 9, 2005.

  1. Skip M wrote:
    []
    I am very much in favour of using the advantage which digital gives us in
    being able to use smaller sensors such as the 4/3 system. My
    disappointment is that so far the Pentax DSLR seems to be more compact
    than 4/3 systems.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 11, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    A 4/3 body is not more compact, because the lens mount it larger. It's
    the lenses which are more compact and light weight.
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 11, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Lourens Smak Guest

    Why didn't you post this in <alt.noise.wanking>? a much more appropriate
    newsgroup for your thoughts.

    FYI I had a few Canon 1D mk2 images on my computer the other day, from a
    colleague, and the iso 800 images didn't have much less noise than my E1
    files at iso 800. The colour however sucked big time, and the images had
    massive purple fringing (which is practically non-existent with the
    E-system) even with the L lens he used. (exif said 24-70L) Nothing I saw
    in these images would make me think of switching to a Canon 1D.

    This month I have a few images published that were shot with my E1 at
    iso 1600. no noise-filtering whatsoever, not even the in-camera filter,
    and the result looks fine in print. (nicely printed glossy mag on satin
    paper) I hardly ever use that speed though so noise is almost a total
    non-issue for me. When I do need it however, there's just nothing wrong
    with it, in real life. The E500 is supposed to be better at high iso.

    Lourens
     
    Lourens Smak, Dec 11, 2005
    #43
  4. Alfred Molon

    Lourens Smak Guest

    Yeah...after you *notice* it needs to be done, which means you need to
    retouch hundreds of dirty images too. And that isn't done in a few
    seconds.

    Lourens
     
    Lourens Smak, Dec 11, 2005
    #44
  5. Alfred Molon

    lens crack Guest


    Herein are the seeds of a truly profound philosophical debate; 'Who is more
    foolish? - the troll, or those who answer him?'

    Deep stuff.

    I can see that our debate will have to be conducted at a very high level,
    indeed........you're devastating!
     
    lens crack, Dec 11, 2005
    #45
  6. Alfred Molon

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    As the camera is closed there is nowhere for it to go therefore it doesn't
    get rid of it but just moves it around. Why do you suppose that the
    Olympus advotes keep on about duat? It's just that they have to deal with
    it so often.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Dec 11, 2005
    #46
  7. Alfred Molon

    RK Guest

    These 'debates' are amazing. You'd think folks didn't have lives other
    than to attack the products people buy, and through them the people
    themselves. Maybe a lot of geeks should spend more time taking good
    photos or the odd ethics course.

    This said, I agree with Lourens. I use Olympus digicams exclusively
    because going through each generation I get a high quality product with
    excellent optics and good customer service when I need it. Thousands of
    photos and virtually no technical or mechanical problems. My old 2020
    is working like the day it was born, my daughter's equivalent Canon,
    purchased at the same time, is limping dearly with power and zoom
    problems.

    There are some quirks here and there (I have a minor bone to pick with
    my E-300's exposure system), but this noise thing really strikes me as
    odd. I often photograph at ISO 800 on my 300, and 200 on my 5060 and
    probably a dozen images have needed noise processing (and please Canon
    flacks, don't accuse me of being a dopey amateur, I make good money
    with my digital photos). Sure, if I used Nikon or Canon (whose products
    I have also used with pleasure; my first slr was a Nikon and I really
    like Canon printers and scanners) I might indeed have less noise, but I
    simply trade that off against a clean sensor, being one who does a lot
    of constuction site photography.

    Oh, there are other issues. Battery life, quality of construction,
    general usability and overall quality of kit lenses, etc. When all is
    taken into account Olympus and Olympus users do not need smash-mouth
    opposition.
     
    RK, Dec 11, 2005
    #47
  8. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    Heck, the Canon RebelXT is more compact than the Oly E-500, albeit slightly
    heavier.
    And what's the advantage that digital gives us with smaller sensors, more
    noise, or more headaches for the electronic engineers? ;-)
     
    Skip M, Dec 11, 2005
    #48
  9. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    But they are not, Alfred. The 14-54 f2.8-3.5 is more compact than the Canon
    17-40 f4L, but only shaves 2 ounces of the weight, and only 1/2 inch off of
    the length and diameter. The 35-100 is actually larger and heavier than the
    70-200 f2.8L IS, and lacks IS, which contributes some weight to that lens.
    Only some lenses have a significant advantage over their full frame
    counterparts, at least the Canon ones, like the 50-200, at 6.2" in length,
    3.4" in diameter and 2.4 lbs, vs the Canon 100-400 L at 7.4", 3.6" and 3.0
    lbs, and it is significantly less expensive and faster. But that advantage
    certainly doesn't extend to all of the lenses in the product lineup.
     
    Skip M, Dec 11, 2005
    #49

  10. You are not comparing like with like.

    The ZD 35-100 has a constant f/2 maximum aperture, a full stop wider
    than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, so it gathers twice as much light. The
    f/2 maximum aperture and a near-telecentric design are good reasons
    why it is a large and heavy lens.
     
    Railway enthusiast, Dec 11, 2005
    #50
  11. I couldn't resist :)
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Dec 11, 2005
    #51
  12. Alfred Molon

    Paul Furman Guest

    So Oly put the advantage toward better performing lenses rather than
    smaller. As I understand, that is the advantage of the system. Weren't
    they selling with a 2-lens kit that was pretty decent?
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2005
    #52
  13. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    This presuposes that low light shots actually make up much of what the
    average person shoots. They don't.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    #53
  14. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    Being one, that figures. Lets say selective amnesia effects more than
    a few.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    #54
  15. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    I think the experience varies widely. I had two darkrooms. Both
    seemed much the same. But one always seemed to have more dust
    than the other, which of course had to be dealt with. I just read
    another review of the 5D complaining about the dust issue. But I
    figure if you are going to spend $5000+ for a camera and decent lens,
    having to deal with dust isn't going to stop you from trying to
    produce the best photos you can, it's just more work.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    #55
  16. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    There is a limit. I saw Canon's little P&S the IS2 or whatever it's
    called. I couldn't believe anyone can use a camera with such a small
    size seamlessly for shooting pictures. IMO, Olympus's E-1 is about
    as small as I'd like to go.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    #56
  17. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    You being one of the more rational of the group are excepted. But
    many Canon users seem very touchy whenever anyone brings up
    any negatives about their systems, and are the first to either attack
    the poster or some other system. It's not hard to see, just watch how
    threads evolve.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    #57
  18. Alfred Molon

    Rich Guest

    I never said that. I'm merely pointing out 4:3 is the format most
    closely adhered to, in print media anyway. Do avid photographers
    care what the gen. public is doing?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 11, 2005
    #58
  19. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Sure it is, all the samples I've seen show the FF canon wide zooms are
    pathetic performers.. Who cares if this 16-35 is a constant f2.8 if it's a
    mushy mess wide open? Useless speed used for marketing (which you bought
    hook line and sinker) is all that is.

    In one post in this thread you claim you don't bash other gear, then turn
    around and show that you post to ANY thread that has something to do with a
    non-canon camera bragging and bashing anything you don't personally choose
    to own. .
     
    Stacey, Dec 11, 2005
    #59
  20. Alfred Molon

    Stacey Guest

    Clueless canonite.. Read up on how this technology works before you look
    even more ignorant.
    Deal with what? Ignorant people who don't know what they are talking
    about? :)
     
    Stacey, Dec 11, 2005
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.